Re: Splitting XSL

[Guy_Murphy@xxxxxxxxxx]

Hi Paul.

Ummm, no we're not all agreed.

I don't see how item b) which will allow parser vendors to ship 100% XSL-T
compliant products is in the benefit of the language. I understand how it
may benefit you commercialy, but I don't see it as being of benefit to the
long term interests of XSL.

Cheers
     Guy.





xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx on 02/09/99 08:11:47 PM

To:   xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
cc:    (bcc: Guy Murphy/UK/MAID)
Subject:  Re: Splitting XSL




[SNIP]
Good point! Do we all agree that the physical organization of the
specification is irrelevant? What we need is for the transformation and
formatting languages to be
 a) separately named
 b) separately conformance tested
And that the combination of the two should be called "XSL."
[SNIP]





 XSL-List info and archive:  http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list